Colonies could inform him whether anything had been done in reference to this matter. The despatches of the noble Lord had been before the public some time, and it was expected that the attention of Parliament would have been called to the consideration of the policy of raising a sum of money on the security of the Home Government for the purpose of promoting immigration into the West Indian Colonies. He would, however, upon that occasion, give no opinion as to the policy of such immigration. Mr. G. W. Hope said, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had stated, in the despatches to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, that on pressing representations from the West India Colonies, he should not object to the passing of Loan Ordinances, if they deemed them advisable. Those Ordinances had been passed in two or three of the Colonies, whilst others had taken the necessary means of providing for such immigration without resorting to Loan Ordinances. Sir R. Peel said, he had stated at an early period of the Session, that Plenipotentiaries had been appointed by the Brazilian Government, for the purpose of negotiating such a Treaty as that to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It was a Treaty not for a tariff, but for giving to British subjects the same privileges as the subjects of other countries possessed. The proceedings, however, of those Plenipotentiaries, unlike the conduct of the Brazilian Government in general, had been very dilatory. In the last accounts from the Brazils, it was stated, that a change had taken place in the Government, and that the Gentleman who was Secretary of State, under whose orders that negotiation was conducted, had been recently moved from that office; and that might, perhaps, have caused the delay. The hon. Gentleman had also referred to the imposition by the Government of the Brazils of an additional duty upon certain British manufactures. He could only say, that, unless the account of the hon. Gentleman had been received within the last few days, he did not think that such was the case; for, although the Minister at the Court of the Brazils had at a recent period written on other subjects, he had not alluded in the most distant manner to any such additional duty having been imposed. Subject at an end. FEES FOR ADMISSION TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS.] Mr. Hume called the attention of the House to the practice of exacting fees or receiving gratuities from the public as the condition of their admittance to cathedrals and other public buildings; and moved― "That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of exacting fees from the public as the condition of their admittance to cathedrals, is highly improper, and ought to be discon tinued." He believed, that, the opening of those edifices would greatly conduce to the public benefit, and regretted that no such steps had been taken for that purpose. He considered the practice of taking fees for admission to be disreputable to the country. Sir R. Peel said, he had always expressed a strong opinion, and felt that there was great advantage from giving as free and unrestricted admission to these noble edifices as was consistent with security to the works of art contained in them. He could not conceive anything more likely to exercise a beneficial influence on the public mind than the free admission to examine such edifices; but due precaution should be taken for securing the monuments and other works of art from injury; although he believed, that, speaking generally, nothing could be more exemplary than the conduct of the great body of the people; and he was speaking of the working classes, because he believed that their conduct had been as exemplary as that of the higher classes; still the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that occasionally it did happen, as in the case of the Portland Vase, and also of some very valuable pictures, that there were exceptions from that general exemplary conduct. He did not mention that as a reason for additional restrictions; but that free admission should not be allowed to the injury of the works of art. That distinguished divine, the late Dean of Westminster, had had an interview with him; and he must say, he believed that it was the wish of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster to give those facilities of admission to the Abbey which they thought they could give consistently with security to the works of art; and he understood that the present Bishop of Ely did give, in pursuance of the promises he made, the fullest consideration to the subject, and that his exertions were constantly directed towards that object. He had now the satisfaction of stating that-not in consequence of the hon. Gentleman's Motion-but in consequence of a communication he had made to the present Dean of Westminster soon after his appointment; and his having stated to him the opinion he had expressed to Dr. Turton, and represented how freely the public had been admitted to the cartoons at Westminster Hall, how exemplary their conduct had been, that there had been no instance of mischief, and that all, had retired with acknowledgments for the opportunity given to them for the inspection of the cartoons-he had a few days since received from Dr. Wilberforce a letter, in which he said "As I know your wishes respecting the admission of strangers into the Abbey, I trouble you with a line to say that I have just issued some new directions on that subject. Strangers are henceforth to be admitted without any payment into the south transept, the nave, and the north transept, that is, into the great body of the church. The only part from which they will be excluded, is from the choir (except at times of service), for obvious reasons, and the chapels behind the choir. These will be shown to them at a charge of 6d. a piece. This will be the only payment allowed in the Abbey. Such a payment is universal on the Continent." He sincerely hoped that that would be an inducement to the deans and chapters of other cathedrals to do the same; and he trusted, that the hon. Gentleman would not raise any difficulty by proposing a Resolution on the part of the House of Commons, which they would have great difficulty in enforcing, imposing an obligation on parties who, he believed, were willing to allow as free admission as they could, consistently with due security to works of art. strongly objected to a church being converted into a place of exhibition; and he might remind the House that the Abbey was not erected with the object of enabling the dean and chapter to levy a tax upon the public. He thought the public might be admitted into the chapels gratuitously, if they were accom. panied by a person whose duty it should be to take care that no injury was done to the monuments or to the edifice. He hoped that the concession announced by the right hon. Baronet was only the prelude to a still further concession, which would afford the public admission to all religious edifices without payment of any pecuniary fee. Mr. Williams wished the right hon. Baronet had compelled the deans and chapters of Westminster and St. Paul's to give the public free admission to those edifices, for he would thereby have removed the stain upon the character of the clergy which attached to them under the present system of requiring fees. He believed the clergy of the Established Church were the only body in this country who demanded fees for the exhibition of their religious edifices. The cathedrals were public property, and did not belong exclusively to the clergy, who derived large revenues from their exhibition. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) would not relax in his laudable efforts to obtain admission for the public to all cathedrals without the payment of any fee. Mr. Borthwick expressed his gratification at the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Baronet; but he thought the object hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to attain would be more effectually secured by the spontaneous good feeling of the clergy, than by any Resolution of the House. His opinion was, that the public ought to have access gratuitously to St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey. Mr. Cowper said, the statement of the right hon. Baronet must be gratifying to the House. The reduction of the charge of admission to the Abbey had only tended Mr. Hume said, he had heard the stateto render the edifice more of a show-placement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. than it was before. When the charge of Peel) with great satisfaction. He hoped admission was high, persons were allowed the right hon. Baronet would exert his into walk in and go where they chose; but fluence to have all other cathedrals, as when a reduction was made, the persons well as Westminster Abbey, thrown open admitted were assembled to the number to the public. He thought the proposed of twelve, and they then went round, ac- charge of 6d. for admission to the chapels companied by a showman, who, in the in Westminster Abbey, ought to be revulgar manner adopted by exhibitors of duced to half that amount. Under the waxworks, described the interesting mon- circumstances, he would not press his uments and relics in the building. He Motion.-Motion withdrawn. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY MR. | nimous in their Report; they agreed upon WRAY.] Mr. Hawes, in rising to bring all the material facts. Mr. Wray was a forward the Motion of which he had given public officer, holding an appointment of notice, could assure the House that it was considerable trust and responsibility, and not without considerable pain that he felt very large sums of public money passed it necessary to call their attention to a through his hands. It appeared that in portion of the Report of the Committee 1836, Mr. Wray allowed himself to be reon the petition of the South-Eastern Rail-tained as the paid agent of a private com.. way Company. He had hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would have spared him the trouble of making, and the House the pain of listening to, the statement of facts to which he now felt it his duty to call their attention. He knew little or nothing of the gentleman whose conduct he was about to bring under their notice. He had no personal feeling whatever towards that gentleman, and he was not aware that, except in his capacity as a public officer, he had ever spoken to him. But, after the notice which the conduct of Mr. Wray had received from the right hon. Home Secretary, he considered it his imperative duty to ask the House and the country to decide whether the strong disapprobation the right hon. Baronet stated he had expressed with regard to Mr. Wray's conduct was a sufficient punishment for the offence that gentleman had committed. It might be said this was a late period of the Session for bringing forward a question of this nature; but he must remind the House that the Report of the Committee to which he had referred was not laid on the Table until the 12th of July. The matter was then left entirely in the hands of the Government; but it was not till the 19th of July that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) addressed a letter to Mr. Wray-that being the same day on which he (Mr. Hawes) had written to the First Lord of the Treasury (Sir R. Peel), intimating his intention to bring the Report under the notice of the House. The letter of the right hon. Home Secretary to Mr. Wray was not printed till the 22d of July, and he thought the House would admit that it was next to impossible for him to have brought this subject under their consideration at an earlier period. He (Mr. Hawes) wished also, before he took such a step, to obtain the sanction of others to whose judgment he greatly deferred; and this circumstance had alone prevented him from instantly calling the attention of the House to the Report. Now, what had been the conduct of Mr. Wray? The Committee, he might observe, were unaVOL. LXXXII. {i} pany to promote the success of a Bill in- 2 Y What was manner over conduct which directly in- | times; and he might now add, that there volved a breach of the privileges of the was nothing worse in former times than House. It was known to many hon. were the transactions of the present day. Members that in 1695 very serious abuses He had shown what the House of Comwere brought under the notice of the mons had done with men high in office public. At that period Members of Par--men of rank and station, and at the liament and persons in very high stations time of the South Sea bubble he found were implicated in a system of jobbing that the following Resolution had been somewhat similar to that which had been adopted :— exposed. The House then came to this general Resolution "That the offer of money or any other advantage to any Member of Parliament as a fee or reward for him to promote the furtherance of any matter depending, or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, and tends to the subversion of the English Constitution." There could be no doubt that al! lawyers would construe such a Resolution to comprehend rewards given afterwards as well as bribes given before the Act done. It was also well known that at common law it was a misdemeanor to offer any reward to any public servant for doing that which he was bound to do without any reward. But the matter which he now sought to bring under the consideration of the House was not one altogether new. He would read a short extract to them, showing what had been done in the case of Mr. Bird :— "Mr. Bird attended according to order, and was called in, and being at the bar was told by the Speaker that there had been a complaint made against him to this House for offering money to Mr. Musgrove, a Member of this House, to present a petition to this House. Whereunto he said, that some persons did apprehend that a Bill depending in this House for selling an estate, late of Mr. Howland, did affect their interest in part of that estate, and therefore desired him to prepare a petition to be presented to this House for the providing for their interest, which accordingly he did; and that he being a stranger to the proceedings of this House, and there being a title in the case, and knowing Mr. Musgrove to be a gentleman of the long robe, did intend to give him a guinea for his advice in that matter; but understanding by Mr. Musgrove that he had committed an error in so doing, he begged pardon of Mr. Musgrove, and as he did now of this House, and then withdrew. Resolved, that the said Mr. Bird be called in, and that Mr. Speaker do reprimand him upon his knees at the bar. And he was called in, and upon his knees reprimanded accordingly, and then discharged." He called their attention to this matter for the purpose of showing them how affairs of this kind were dealt with in former "That the taking in or holding of stock by the South Sea Company for the benefit of any Member of either House of Parliament, or person concerned in the Administration (during the time that the Company's proposals, or the Bill thereto relating, were depending in Parliament), without any valuable consideration paid, or sufficient security given for the acceptance of or the payment for such stock, and the difference arising by the advanced price of the Company's paying or allowing such person the stock, were corrupt, infamous, and dangerous practices, and highly reflecting on the honour and justice of Parliament, and destructive of the interest of His Majesty's Government." The case now before the House was one in which an attempt had been made to influence the conduct of Members of the House of Commons, by the application of money belonging to a public company. Then, he would ask, was the House of Commons in the present day to pass over such a case? Would they be satisfied with the weak and undecided letter which the right hon. Baronet had written? It was now time to make a stand against such proceedings, and to call upon the Ministers of the Crown to maintain the purity of the subordinate departments of the Government. He had already referred them to what had been done in the House of Commons, and he had no doubt that the proceedings of the House of Lords would be found to be in consonance with those of the representative branch of the Legislature. In fact, the Journals of the Lords showed this, as might be seen from the following Resolution: "It is resolved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that the taking of stock belonging to the South Sea Company, or giving credit for the same without a valuable consideration actually paid or sufficiently secured, or the purchasing stock by any director or agent of the South Sea Company for the use or benefit of any person in the Administration, or any Member of either House of Parliament, during such time as the late Bill relating to the South Sea Company was depending last year in Parliament, was a notorious and most dangerous corruption." this House, and as a Member of a Select Committee, to which the Bill of this Com. the Secretary of State has not adverted in the pany was referred; a circumstance to which opinion of this House, such conduct deserves not only the serious animadversion of the House, but disqualifies Mr. Wray from holding an office of trust and responsibility under the Though this was a matter of great import- | Mr. Bonham, for his services as a Member of ance in the House of Commons, as well as out of doors, yet he refrained from the use of any harsh expression; and he might add, that throughout the whole proceed-letter addressed to Mr. Wray. That in the ings of the Committee, there was nothing even approaching to harshness. He was bound further to state, that Mr. Bonham concealed nothing that he frankly told all he knew-and that the Committee acquitted Captain Boldero of all personal corruption, though his conduct was most indiscreet. But, at the same time, the Committee were quite of opinion that that Gentleman would not, if the Solicitor to the Ordnance had been a man of a different character, have allowed himself to be entangled in such transactions. For Mr. Wray, however, there was no excuse. He took the money in question to Mr. Bonham, that gentleman being at the time under great obligations to him. He did not say that by way of any disparagement to Mr. Bonham, but for the purpose of showing that Mr. Wray ought to have been the last man in the world to solicit him to become concerned in such affairs. Nothing could be so indefensible as was the conduct of Mr. Wray. In bringing these proceedings under the consideration of the House, he stood forward in the discharge of a painful duty. If he had not undertaken that duty, the parties still could not have escaped the just censure of the House, for some other Member would have been induced to call on them to pronounce an opinion. In taking this step, he was sanctioned by the judgment and opinions of several hon. Members, and he felt that it now remained for him to take the sense of the House on the following Resolutions: Crown." Sir J. Graham said: As the hon. Member for Lambeth has so frankly and unreservedly stated the opinion which he entertains of my conduct, I must say, that I do not blame the course which he has thought proper to take upon this occasion. It appears to me that the question now before the House may be disposed of with very little loss of time, for the whole of the circumstances of the case lie within a very narrow compass. But, before I proceed to consider those facts, or to call the attention of the House to the conclusions which must necessarily be deduced from them, I beg to say that I am not at all about to dispute the constitutional doctrines which the hon. Gentleman has laid down. I have no intention whatever of denying the weight of those precedents to which he has referred us. I quite concur with him in thinking that no care is ill bestowed which has a tendency to preserve the purity of this House; and I also agree with him that it is exposed to some danger from the spirit of speculation which at this moment prevails; and furthermore, no man can, for a moment, doubt that strict impartiality ought to be religiously observed by the Members of this House in every matter, public or private, upon which they are required to give a vote. It is also equally unquestionable "That it appears from the Report and Evi- that no crime is greater than to attempt dence laid before this House by the Select to seduce the Members of this House from Committee on the South Eastern Railway the strict and uniform observance of that Company's Petition, that Mr. Wray, the Re-impartiality which forms one of their first ceiver of the Metropolitan Police District, was, duties. After expressing these several in the year 1836, the retained and paid agent opinions, I now proceed to the other obof a private Company, to promote the success of a Bill introduced into Parliament on their servations which I feel called upon to behalf. That it also appears, from an Answer make. In the first place, I must observe to an Address of this House, that the Secre- that I have not risen for the purpose of tary of State for the Home Department has, defending Mr. Wray; nor is it my intenin consequence of the Report and Evidence re-tion in any respect to palliate his conduct, ferred to, addressed a letter to Mr. Wray, expressing his strong disapprobation of Mr. Wray's conduct, That it appears to this House, upon a reference to the Evidence, that Mr. Wray, on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company, paid the sum of 3001, derived from the 'sale of Railway Shares, to and, therefore, all that I have now to say may be very briefly brought before the House. To the best of my judgment, I have in this case endeavoured to do justice, and to give effect to that which I conceived to be the decision of the Com |